I think it would be very useful to focus on the large amount of material that has been written as a result of Allais' historical pendulum experiments. This looks like the best, fairest and most encompassing of the links I've seen so far:

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Maurice Allais (1911 - ) won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988. He stated, "All my researches in theoretical and applied physics which, at first sight, appear to be remote from my main activity as an economist, have, in reality, enriched me with valuable experience."

Both before and after the eclipse, the pendulum experienced normal rotation (Foucault effect of 0.19 degrees/minute). This 13.5-degree excursion in the angular plane persisted throughout the length of the eclipse, a total of 2.5 hours of observations. Allais got similar results when he later repeated the experiment during a solar eclipse in 1959.

It just occurred to me that if linear gravity does vary in relation to the rotational axis of a large object, then that fact would be very open to verify experimentally.

Our planet's orbit around the sun dips and rises monthly with respect to the plane perpendicular to the sun's rotational axis. The same is true of the moon. Any particular solar eclipse will represent a combination of those 2 variables. In such a case the pendulum anomalies would be quite different for each particular eclipse and with enough tests could eventually be mapped to a model using those 2 variables theoretically.

It just occurred to me that if linear gravity does vary in relation to the rotational axis of a large object, then that fact would be very open to verify experimentally.

Our planet's orbit around the sun dips and rises monthly with respect to the plane perpendicular to the sun's rotational axis. The same is true of the moon. Any particular solar eclipse will represent a combination of those 2 variables. In such a case the pendulum anomalies would be quite different for each particular eclipse and with enough tests could eventually be mapped to a model using those 2 variables theoretically.

I agree with your assessment. Please consider this Mr. Riktare. The greatest pull of linear gravity should be in the plane of the equators of every rotating body. Less so above and below this equatorial plane and less so as it extends out and weakens by intervening space. Remember that the revelations do not fully endorse the inverse square law and considers it a rough approximation.

I wonder if this mapped model will have the appearance of the circles of Apollonius (the magnetic field of the Earth as a model). I suspect that the magnetic field is really not a field but actual particles traveling from one hemisphere to the other and bowing out as they jump from hemisphere to hemisphere due to this differential gravitational field. How would you explain this? I think that the revelation is telling.

It is not just a two body or a three body problem, it involves differential angles of axial rotation by each and every body involved.

(41:9.2) Atoms and electrons are subject to gravity. The ultimatons are not subject to local gravity, the interplay of material attraction, but they are fully obedient to absolute or Paradise gravity, to the trend, the swing, of the universal and eternal circle of the universe of universes. Ultimatonic energy does not obey the linear or direct gravity attraction of near-by or remote material masses, but it does ever swing true to the circuit of the great ellipse of the far-flung creation.

Well, from memory, I believe we are told that free, uncharged particles such as ultimatons do not exhibit gravitational forces or electro-magnetic forces on other material particles. They may be engaged in a circular space drift around paradise but they don't contribute to physical effects themselves in the Master Universe. They seem to be rather, raw building blocks for the Master Universe's physical makeup. At least that is what I can gather from the UB narrative.

42:1.2 Matter—energy—for they are but diverse manifestations of the same cosmic reality, as a universe phenomenon is inherent in the Universal Father. “In him all things consist.” Matter may appear to manifest inherent energy and to exhibit self-contained powers, but the lines of gravity involved in the energies concerned in all these physical phenomena are derived from, and are dependent on, Paradise, The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus.

Riktare wrote:

Well, from memory, I believe we are told that free, uncharged particles such as ultimatons do not exhibit gravitational forces or electro-magnetic forces on other material particles. They may be engaged in a circular space drift around paradise but they don't contribute to physical effects themselves in the Master Universe. They seem to be rather, raw building blocks for the Master Universe's physical makeup. At least that is what I can gather from the UB narrative.

The Ultimaton must somehow, simultaneously, be subject to the absolute gravity control of Paradise as its nucleus, as well as Paradise at the nucleus of the Master Universe.

I agree with Mr. Riktare that linear gravity does not come into play until a particle becomes charged. In other words, until a particle has a stable axis of rotation and polarity. Polarity brings about an equator and linear gravity attraction. This equator is perpendicular to mass, the line that joins the poles of the spinning particle, and is the plane of greatest attractive pull.

Absolute Paradise gravity has a center (point) of gravity. Whereas, spinning, breathing particles have a line of gravity (linear). This line is the line joining the poles of a charged particle. That is why a plane can be perpendicular to mass. A plane can be perpendicular to a line but not a point.

In a sense, can't one say that "charge" is linear gravity? This would be a stunning revelation if it makes sense.

11:8.9 Paradise is the absolute source and the eternal focal point of all energy-matter in the universe of universes. The Unqualified Absolute is the revealer, regulator, and repository of that which has Paradise as its source and origin. The universal presence of the Unqualified Absolute seems to be equivalent to the concept of a potential infinity of gravity extension, an elastic tension of Paradise presence. This concept aids us in grasping the fact that everything is drawn inward towards Paradise. The illustration is crude but nonetheless helpful. It also explains why gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass, a phenomenon indicative of the differential dimensions of Paradise and the surrounding creations.

Charge in the classical sense is defined as a discontinuity of polarization. In other words, it is the place in space where the electro-magnetic orientation of a particle or group of particles breaks down. The freedom to orient or re-position themselves in a way that minimizes stress is taken away. Potential energy (and stress) therefore collects at that point, line or surface. Possibly the same is true for gravity also.

(The "tension" of gravity or other space force produces stress where tension is opposed).

The "unexplained huddling proclivity" of ultimatons may be important in the transition from free ultimatons to aggregations as a charged particle.

Charge in the classical sense is defined as a discontinuity of polarization. In other words, it is the place in space where the electro-magnetic orientation of a particle or group of particles breaks down. The freedom to orient or re-position themselves in a way that minimizes stress is taken away. Potential energy (and stress) therefore collects at that point, line or surface. Possibly the same is true for gravity also.

I understand what you are saying about charge but can you see charge and linear gravity as one and the same? Perhaps a charge field is in reality a gravitational field and actual particles are moving in this field. Take for example a bar magnet and the iron fillings. Perhaps the field that we see in the orientations of the fillings are particles moving from pole to pole in a gravitational field and physically aligning the iron fillings as they move and interact.

0:6.11 ...Pattern may configure energy, but it does not control it. Gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. Neither space nor pattern are gravity responsive, but there is no relationship between space and pattern; space is neither pattern nor potential...

42:4.1 ...Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemism, energy, and matter are - in origin, nature, and destiny - one and the same thing, together with other material realities as yet undiscovered on Urantia....

toto, there are apparently some crucially important items in the paragraph you quoted that were not actually brought to bear. I "see" actually the contrary observation that charge and gravity are emphatically not the same thing. I was hoping the paragraph quoted explained that point. They cannot be the same thing even if a strong relationship between them exists. Gravity is the source of tension in space. Do you agree that the revelators make that clear?

toto, there are apparently some crucially important items in the paragraph you quoted that were not actually brought to bear. I "see" actually the contrary observation that charge and gravity are emphatically not the same thing. I was hoping the paragraph quoted explained that point. They cannot be the same thing even if a strong relationship between them exists. Gravity is the source of tension in space. Do you agree that the revelators make that clear?

Yes, Riktare, but please specify absolute gravity vs linear gravity. Motion is the result of absolute gravity and charge is the result of imbalanced motion that creates polarity. Polarity then creates linear gravity from its two foci, the poles. This creates a whole new field that causes a new tension between poles. This tension is relieved by the motions of particles or energy from pole to pole, north to south and visa versa. The Earth has a charge because there is an imbalance of motion across the equator. Particles of matter must move from the hemisphere of greater motion to the one of lesser motion. There is always an imbalance of mass between hemispherical halves. And this creates the charge potential.

We must always remember also that matter is in space but there is also space in matter. This too the revelators made clear. This is why Einstein's gravitational theory is invalid. Matter cannot warp the space within it or else all space would be squeezed out of matter and the Universe would only consist of absolute substance (Paradise).

I wish I could. The revelators give only a teasing amount of information about Paradise gravity and they don't indicate how it affects matter other than ultimatons. Even that is sketchy. If we're going to speculate my small mind requires some real evidence and a follow through and analysis of any potential working model.

You make an important point about Einstein's gravitational theory. Both Special Relativity and General Relativity are critically hobbled due to Einstein's great confusion in making the size of space vary due to conditions placed upon it. The revelators tell us, and the best 19th and 20th century physicists do also, that it is rather the conditions within space that change. Space contains something. It is not empty. Neither is it dependent in any way on time...

This we can totally agree on. However, one cannot push with a rope. Charge, we are told, has repulsive forces in that like charges repel. Is this repellent force a field or is this force collisional?

If it is a field, then the charge field controls matter-energy. If it is a collisional force, then some field is causing particles to move and collide.

Riktare wrote:

Charge in the classical sense is defined as a discontinuity of polarization.

I do not understand this definition. Polarization is a separation of a single focus into two foci. It is the making of an ellipse out of a circle. This creates a tension. I see no discontinuity in this. An equator is not a discontinuation, it is a reflection, where + turn to - and visa versa.

Riktare wrote:

I wish I could. The revelators give only a teasing amount of information about Paradise gravity and they don't indicate how it affects matter other than ultimatons. Even that is sketchy. If we're going to speculate my small mind requires some real evidence and a follow through and analysis of any potential working model.

I can't either, based on the what the revelators have said, but perhaps teasing is an inappropriate expression. I prefer to think of it as a challenge to think beyond what we are told. After all, we are not to be given unearned knowledge. Please allow me to present a working model for your consideration and critique.

Ultimatons, the first measurable motion, have a center, and that center is Paradise. They are controlled by the absolute gravity of Paradise. As a spinning particle, when the ultimaton develops a charge due to an imbalance of motion across its equator, linear gravity appears as a field. This field is not spherical as is absolute gravity, but rather toroidal. The analogy is a circle verses an ellipse.

All orbits are elliptical. Where is the field that can account for an elliptical orbit? It cannot be spherical and be governed by the verse square law. The Sun sits at one foci of the ellipse and the other foci is conspicuously absent. The model of a spherical gravitational field (Newton) following the inverse square law would necessarily have the Earth flying off into space at aphelion and crashing into the Sun at perihelion.

In creating the tension of separating the focus into two, the missing force coming from the ghost foci is found at the other pole of a two body system, Earth and Sun. Only a toroidal gravitational field can account for elliptical orbits.

Evidence was provided long ago by Kepler. Every observation since has confirmed the elliptical orbits of the planets.

Riktare wrote:

They cannot be the same thing even if a strong relationship between them exists.

Here you are referring to gravity and charge. You admit that there exist a strong relationship between them. Either they are one and the same or one controls the other. Either the relationship is one of unity or it is a perpendicular relationship. And all control is perpendicular. Time conditions space, not the other way around. Space and time is an orthogonally related. Einstein and Minkowski were correct about that. Their error was making time linear and space an absolute unbounded cubic, albeit one that can stretch. A line of time cannot be perpendicular to a cubic. They placed linear time in the imaginary plane and used hyperbolic math to sell their wares. They should have made space hyperbolic and realized that time must be circular because only circles can be orthogonal (perpendicular) to circular time. Now we see how that has impacted our space program. The chickens have come home to roost.

nu·cle·usˈn(y)o͞oklēəs/Submitnounthe central and most important part of an object, movement, or group, forming the basis for its activity and growth."the nucleus of a film-producing industry"synonyms: core, center, central part, heart, nub, hub, middle, eye, focus, focal point, pivot, crux"the nucleus of the international banking world"

(42:1.2) Matter—energy—for they are but diverse manifestations of the same cosmic reality, as a universe phenomenon is inherent in the Universal Father. "In him all things consist." Matter may appear to manifest inherent energy and to exhibit self-contained powers, but the lines of gravity involved in the energies concerned in all these physical phenomena are derived from, and are dependent on, Paradise. The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus.

toto wrote:

Ultimatons, the first measurable motion, have a center, and that center is Paradise.

So this means the ultimaton moves around Paradise as its nucleus in "the trend of the circle, the swing of the great ellipse", not that Paradise is at the center of each ultimaton right?

So this means the ultimaton moves around Paradise as its nucleus in "the trend of the circle, the swing of the great ellipse", not that Paradise is at the center of each ultimaton right?

Actually, the ultimaton is measurable because it spins. The ultimaton has a center and that center is Paradise. The Ultimaton also moves around Paradise in the Master Universe sense. These apparently separate centers are one and the same. There can only be one center.

Space is a system of associated points. These points are centers. But these centers are one and the same. "Associated points" can only be said to be associated (related) if they are one and the same. There can only be one point. A point without extension can only be associated with itself.

The theoretical "I AM" can only be associated with itself. The theoretical "I AM" can only extend itself in relationship. The central, singular "I AM" extends itself to the concentric circles of the Holy Trinity. This extension is also called radius and relates to all extensions in a right handed manner.

118:3.1 Only by ubiquity could Deity unify time-space manifestations to the finite conception, for time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. You do, after all, perceive time by analysis and space by synthesis. You co-ordinate and associate these two dissimilar conceptions by the integrating insight of personality. Of all the animal world only man possesses this time-space perceptibility. To an animal, motion has a meaning, but motion exhibits value only to a creature of personality status.

Charge in the classical sense is defined as a discontinuity of polarization.

I do not understand this definition. Polarization is a separation of a single focus into two foci. It is the making of an ellipse out of a circle. This creates a tension. I see no discontinuity in this. An equator is not a discontinuation, it is a reflection, where + turn to - and visa versa.

The discontinuity is where the polarization no longer applies. That must be the case otherwise electrons could not congregate together to build a composite charge like that on the terminal of a battery. Likewise the charged region of an electron cannot be polarized. In your bipolar visualization each foci would be a charge, not the equator.

toto wrote:

Time conditions space, not the other way around.

Are you sure about that? I believe the revelators clearly state that is not the case: either case you mention.

toto wrote:

Space and time is an orthogonally related. Einstein and Minkowski were correct about that.

So you are incorporating the metric of time into the metric of space as Einstein and Minkowski did? Again, the relevators clearly tell us that that is not reality. At least it is not their way of perceiving Physics.